U.S.

Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office of the Clerk

5107 Leesb11rg Pike, S11ite 2000 Falls Ch11rch. Virginia 22041

Cooke, Arthur Campbell., Esq The Law Office of Campbell Cooke 4627 East 91st Street Tulsa, OK 74137

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - OKC 4400 SW 44th Street, Suite A Oklahoma City, OK 73119-2800

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: SADIK, HICHAM

A096-680-844

Date of this notice: 6/8/2012

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Sincerely,

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members: Kendall-Clark, Molly

Cite as: Hicham Sadik, A096 680 844 (BIA Jun. 8, 2012)

'

U.S. Department of Justice

Ex_ecutive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File:

A096 680 844 - Oklahoma City, OK

Date:

JUN 0 8 2012

In re: HICHAM SADIK IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS MOTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: APPLICATION: Reconsideration Arthur Campbell Cooke, Esquire

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

This matter was before the Board on February 14, 2012, when we dismissed the respondent's appeal of the Immigration Judge's June 14, 2010, decision denying his application for adjustment of status. The respondent filed this motion to reconsider the Board's decision on March 14, 2012. The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to the motion, which will be denied. A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision, and be supported by pertinent authority.

See section 240(c)(6)(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,

8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(6)(c); 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(b)(l ). In this case, the Immigration Judge and the Board denied adjustment of status as an exercise of discretion, concluding that the respondent was not credible and that his equities did not outweigh the negative factors. Both the Immigration Judge and the Board considered the favorable factors in reaching this conclusion. See Decision of the Board, Feb. 14, 2012, at 1; I.J. at 13. The motion reargues the relative weight to be given the favorable and unfavorable factors, but does not successfully resolve the credibility issues or show that any of the negative factors cited by the Immigration Judge or the Board do not in fact exist.

See, e.g., Motion to Reconsider at 10-13.

As the Board explained, the negative factors include the respondent's "short-lived attendance at school despite his student visa, his failure to register with NSEERS [National Security Entry-Exit Registration System], and his failure to submit evidence that he attempted to pay back taxes for the years 2001-2005." Decision of the Board, Feb. 14, 2012, at 1. The record in this matter shows that the respondent entered the United States in 2001 on a student visa, but has never attended college except for brief attendance at an English as a Second Language course. He willfully failed to comply with requirements to register under NSEERS, also known as "special registration." He worked during the 2001-2005 period without authorization and without reporting his income to the Internal Revenue Service, and has not paid back taxes. See I.J. at 13-14. The respondent's motion fails to identify any error of law or fact in our decision or identify any argument advanced on appeal that was improperly overlooked by the Board. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(b)(l ); be denied.

see also Matter o/0-S-G-, 24 l&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2006). The motion will therefore

Cite as: Hicham Sadik, A096 680 844 (BIA Jun. 8, 2012)

t ':

A096 680 844

ORDER: The motion to reconsider and motion for a stay are denied.

OR THE BOARD

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Cite as: Hicham Sadik, A096 680 844 (BIA Jun. 8, 2012)